R RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. S AMIRTHALINGA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the issues arising for the consideration of this Court in both the appeal suits and in the writ petition are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common Judgment is being passed.

(2.) THE appeals, in A.S.No.271 of 2007 and A.S.No.4 of 2011, had been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 12.7.2006, made in O.S.No.5545 of 2004, on the file of the VIth Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. THE suit in O.S.No.5545 of 2004, had been filed seeking for a declaration declaring that the orders of clarification bearing Nos.D.Dis.25342/2004 (D2), dated 16.4.2004 and D.Dis.25342-2/2004 (D2), dated 18.5.2004, issued by the first defendant in A.P.No.12 of 2003, are illegal, void and inoperative and for a declaration that the scheme of the third defendant Devasthanam, as modified by the order, dated 4.9.2003, passed by the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is valid and binding on the defendants and for costs.

(3.) THE plaintiff had also stated that he belongs to the Sengunthar Mudaliar Community of Karani village and he is a worshipper of Sri Karaneeswarar Temple, Saidapet. He had made substantial contributions for the activities of the Temple. While so, after the coming into force of the amended Hindu Religious and Chartable Endowment Act, 1959, the Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Chartable Endowments Department had taken steps to modify the original scheme framed for the Temple. However, the trustees of the second defendant Devasthanam had filed a suit, in O.S.No.6784 of 1971, on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, and had obtained a decree, dated 2.3.1974, declaring that the second defendant Devasthanam had a right to elect its own representatives for managing its affairs without interference from the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. THE modified scheme framed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department had been set aside. Subsequently, as the Supreme Court, confirming the Judgment of a division bench of this Court, had held that the powers of the Court to modify its scheme stood transferred to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board and that the first defendant was well within its powers to issue a notice to the second defendant Devasthanam to modify the schemes framed by the Court.